<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: 508 #19: Our friend, Kate Toomey</title> <atom:link href="http://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2008/01/25/508-019/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2008/01/25/508-019/</link> <description>&#34;When things speed up hierarchy disappears and global theater sets in.&#34; --Marshall McLuhan</description> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:46:19 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Tracy</title><link>http://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2008/01/25/508-019/comment-page-1/#comment-169280</link> <dc:creator>Tracy</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:04:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2008/01/25/508-019/#comment-169280</guid> <description>Thanks for posting the little version for those of us with slow connections!
I&#039;ll never get to a phone to say it, but, if you don&#039;t feel you&#039;ve beaten the water thing to death, I wonder what you think of the difference in the numbers between the EPA and the city. It&#039;s all in the question over treating storm water. The city thinks it&#039;s needed; the EPA says not. What I haven&#039;t heard anyone say (&#039;though I admit I didn&#039;t catch Tuesday&#039;s council meeting) is that we could avoid having to treat it (either now or with a new, stricter EPA) by cutting down on the phosphates in the river, say, by cutting out the gunk we dump on our lawns. Or dealing with automobile use, though that could be trickier. Cars and lawns are the primary sources of phosphates in the river. What we don&#039;t dump on the lawn or in the street never goes in the river.
Just a thought!
Keep up the great work; I look forward to hearing it every week.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for posting the little version for those of us with slow connections!<br
/> I&#8217;ll never get to a phone to say it, but, if you don&#8217;t feel you&#8217;ve beaten the water thing to death, I wonder what you think of the difference in the numbers between the EPA and the city. It&#8217;s all in the question over treating storm water. The city thinks it&#8217;s needed; the EPA says not. What I haven&#8217;t heard anyone say (&#8216;though I admit I didn&#8217;t catch Tuesday&#8217;s council meeting) is that we could avoid having to treat it (either now or with a new, stricter EPA) by cutting down on the phosphates in the river, say, by cutting out the gunk we dump on our lawns. Or dealing with automobile use, though that could be trickier. Cars and lawns are the primary sources of phosphates in the river. What we don&#8217;t dump on the lawn or in the street never goes in the river.<br
/> Just a thought!<br
/> Keep up the great work; I look forward to hearing it every week.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
